A man who had intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan, knowing it was forbidden, while his wife was not willing; what is his obligation?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward the honorableThe Shaykh : A man had intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan, knowing that it was forbidden, while his wife was not willing. At that time, he was not maintaining the prayer or the fast, but Allah has guided him now, so he is maintaining the prayer and the fast. My question is: what is my obligation? And does the obligatory freeing of a slave suffice for the blood money of a Christian man? A Muslim man ran over a Christian man, and blood money is required for that; is it permissible to pay that in lieu of freeing a slave?
The Shaykh : First, we ask: did he not pray at all when he had intercourse with his wife? If so, he is a disbeliever. If he repents from disbelief, the sins he committed during his disbelief are forgiven for him. But if he was a Muslim committed to Islam, though he prayed and then left it off, he is not a disbeliever. The ruling of Islam at the time of the act does not apply to him, but the expiation for intercourse during the day in Ramadan applies to him, provided that he was in his home country at the time. If he was traveling, however, a traveler is permitted to have intercourse during the day in Ramadan. Suppose a man was traveling with his wife during the day in Ramadan, and he and his family fasted, but then during the day he had intercourse with his family; he owes nothing except making up that day. That is, a traveler is not required to fast. But if he fasted in his home country and had intercourse, he is required to make expiation. The expiation is freeing a slave; if he does not find one, then fasting two consecutive months; if he cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. As for his wife, he says she was not willing. If she was coerced and unable to resist her husband, she owes nothing, neither making up the day nor expiation. But if she was not coerced, though she was not willing—meaning she disliked the act but agreed to it—then she owes the expiation. As for his statement about freeing a slave: if a Muslim man ran over a Christian, we say it is not valid for a Muslim to free a slave by paying blood money. First, because this Muslim who ran over the disbeliever cannot be killed in retaliation for the disbeliever, even if he took a knife and slaughtered him.Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1413Hasan (Darussalam) Therefore, the life of the Muslim is not currently subject to retaliation; the obligation is blood money. Second, running over someone generally does not happen intentionally. It is generally the case that running over someone, even if it is a disbeliever, does not happen intentionally by people. People are not mad enough to intentionally run over people with their cars in the markets. Rather, it happens by mistake, and there is no retaliation for a mistake, even if he ran over a Muslim by mistake. The one who ran over him is not killed; killing is only for intentional acts, for intentional acts only. And on this basis, we say to the brother: it is not possible for paying the blood money for the Muslim man to suffice for freeing a slave, because the meaning of freeing a slave is that you buy a slave and free him, a slave who is owned. Some people say that if you save a drowning person from drowning, that is freeing a slave. Is that correct or not? It is undoubtedly freeing a soul, but it is not freeing a slave; it does not suffice for freeing a slave. Incidentally, some people say that if a man saves a woman from drowning, he becomes her brother and her mahram. Is that correct or not? It is not correct; saving her from drowning or from burning does not make him her mahram.
The Shaykh : First, we ask: did he not pray at all when he had intercourse with his wife? If so, he is a disbeliever. If he repents from disbelief, the sins he committed during his disbelief are forgiven for him. But if he was a Muslim committed to Islam, though he prayed and then left it off, he is not a disbeliever. The ruling of Islam at the time of the act does not apply to him, but the expiation for intercourse during the day in Ramadan applies to him, provided that he was in his home country at the time. If he was traveling, however, a traveler is permitted to have intercourse during the day in Ramadan. Suppose a man was traveling with his wife during the day in Ramadan, and he and his family fasted, but then during the day he had intercourse with his family; he owes nothing except making up that day. That is, a traveler is not required to fast. But if he fasted in his home country and had intercourse, he is required to make expiation. The expiation is freeing a slave; if he does not find one, then fasting two consecutive months; if he cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. As for his wife, he says she was not willing. If she was coerced and unable to resist her husband, she owes nothing, neither making up the day nor expiation. But if she was not coerced, though she was not willing—meaning she disliked the act but agreed to it—then she owes the expiation. As for his statement about freeing a slave: if a Muslim man ran over a Christian, we say it is not valid for a Muslim to free a slave by paying blood money. First, because this Muslim who ran over the disbeliever cannot be killed in retaliation for the disbeliever, even if he took a knife and slaughtered him.